Following a pause, with a relatively flat rate, from 1998 to 2008, the long-term trend of university patenting rising as a share of all patenting has resumed, driven by the internationalization of academic entrepreneurship and the persistence of US university technology transfer. The authors disaggregate this recent growth in university patenting at the US Patent and Trademark Organization (USPTO) in terms of nations and patent classes. Foreign patenting in the United States almost doubled during the period 2009–2014, mainly due to patenting by universities in Taiwan, Korea, China and Japan. These nations compete with the United States in terms of patent portfolios, whereas most European countries – with the exception of the United Kingdom – have more specific portfolios, mainly in biomedical fields. In the case of China, Tsinghua University holds 63% of the university patents in USPTO; followed by King Fahd University with 55.2% of the national portfolio.
AppleR (1989) Patenting university research: Harry Steenbock and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. ISIS80(303): 375–394.
2.
BaldiniN (2010) Do royalties really foster university patenting activity?An answer from Italy. Technovation30(2): 109–116.
3.
BermanEP (2008) Why did universities start patenting? Institution-building and the road to the Bayh–Dole Act. Social Studies of Science38(6): 835–871.
4.
BlissM (1982) The Discovery of Insulin. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
5.
BorgattiSP (2002) NetDraw Software for Network Visualization. Lexington: Analytic Technologies.
6.
BoschmaRBallandP-AKoglerDF (2014). Relatedness and technological change in cities: the rise and fall of technological knowledge in US metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010. Industrial and Corporate Change24(1): 223–250.
7.
BreschSLissoniFMontobbioF (2005) From publishing to patenting: do productive scientists turn into academic inventors?Revue d’économie Industrielle110(1): 75–102.
8.
BreznitzSMEtzkowitzH (eds) (2016) University Technology Transfer: The Globalization of Academic Innovation. London: Routledge.
9.
BrucknerEEbelingWMontañoMAJ. (1994) Hyperselection and innovation described by a stochastic model of technological evolution. In: LeydesdorffLVan den BesselaarP (eds) Evolutionary Economics and Chaos Theory: New Directions in Technology Studies. London: Pinter, pp. 79–90.
10.
CallaertJDu PlessisMVan LooyB. (2013) The impact of academic technology: do modes of involvement matter? The Flemish case. Industry and Innovation20(5): 456–472.
11.
CriscuoloP (2004) R&D Internationalisation and Knowledge Transfer. PhD thesis, MERIT, University of Maastricht, Maastricht.
12.
DavidPForayD (1995) Assessing and expanding the science and technology knowledge base. STI Review16: 13–68.
13.
DornbuschFSchmochUSchulzeN. (2012) Identification of university-based patents: a new large-scale approach. Research Evaluation22(1): 52–63.
14.
DosiG (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy11(3): 147–162.
15.
EtzkowitzH (2002) MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science. London: Routledge.
16.
EtzkowitzH (2006) The new visible hand: an assisted linear model of science and innovation policy. Science and Public Policy33(5): 310–320.
17.
EtzkowitzH (2013) Mistaking dawn for dusk: quantophrenia and the cult of numerology in technology transfer analysis. Scientometrics97(3): 913–925.
18.
EtzkowitzH (2015a) Making a humanities town: knowledge-infused clusters, civic entrepreneurship and civil society in local innovation systems. Triple Helix Journal2(1). DOI: 10.1186/s40604-014-0012-z
19.
EtzkowitzH (2015b) The evolution of technology transfer. In: BreznitzSMEtzkowitzH (eds) University Technology Transfer: The Globalization of Academic Innovation. London: Routledge, pp. 3–22.
20.
EtzkowitzH (2016) The entrepreneurial university: vision and metrics. Industry and Higher Education30(2): 83–97.
21.
EtzkowitzHStevensAJ (1995) Inching toward industrial policy: the university’s role in government initiatives to assist small, innovative companies in the United States. Science Studies8(2): 13–31.
22.
FeldmanMClaytonP (2016) The American experience in university technology transfer. In: BreznitzSMEtzkowitzH (eds) University Technology Transfer: The Globalization of Academic Innovation. London: Routledge, pp. 37–65.
23.
FreemanC (1987) Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.
24.
GeunaANestaLJ (2006) University patenting and its effects on academic research: the emerging European evidence. Research Policy35(6): 790–807.
25.
GibbonsMLimogesCNowotnyH. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
26.
GodinB (2006) The knowledge-based economy: conceptual framework or buzzword?Journal of Technology Transfer31(1): 17–30.
27.
Göktepe-HultenDMahagaonkarP (2010) Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of money or reputation?Journal of Technology Transfer35(4): 401–423.
28.
HallLABagchi-SenS (2002) A study of R&D, innovation, and business performance in the Canadian biotechnology industry. Technovation22(4): 231–244.
29.
JaffeABTrajtenbergM (2002) Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.
30.
KenneyMPattonD (2009) Reconsidering the Bayh–Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy38(9): 1407–1422.
31.
LeydesdorffL (2007) Scientific communication and cognitive codification: social systems theory and the sociology of scientific knowledge. European Journal of Social Theory10(3): 375–388.
32.
LeydesdorffLBornmannL (2012) Mapping (USPTO) patent data using overlays to Google Maps. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology63(7): 1442–1458.
33.
LeydesdorffLHeimeriksGRotoloD (2016) Journal portfolio analysis for countries, cities, and organizations: maps and comparisons. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology67(3): 741–748.
34.
LeydesdorffLMeyerM (2010) The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect. Scientometrics83(2): 355–362.
35.
LeydesdorffLMeyerM (2013) A reply to Etzkowitz’ comments to Leydesdorff & Martin (2010): technology transfer and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect. Scientometrics97(3): 927–934.
36.
LeydesdorffLAlkemadeFHeimeriksG. (2015) Patents as instruments for exploring innovation dynamics: Geographic and technological perspectives on ‘photovoltaic cells’. Scientometrics102(1): 629–651.
37.
LeydesdorffLKushnirDRafolsI (2014). Interactive overlay maps for US patent (USPTO) data based on International Patent Classifications (IPC). Scientometrics98(3): 1583–1599.
38.
LundvallB-Å (1988) Innovation as an interactive process: from user–producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In: DosiGFreemanCNelsonR. (eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter, pp. 349–369.
39.
MazzoleniR (2006) The effects of university patenting and licensing on downstream R&D investment and social welfare. Journal of Technology Transfer31(4): 431–441.
40.
MitraJEdmondsonJ (2015) From past to future: where next? In: MitraJEdmondsonJ (eds) Entrepreneurship and Knowledge Exchange. London: Routledge, pp. 468–488.
41.
MoweryDCNelsonRRSampatBN. (2001) The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy30(1): 99–119.
42.
NarinFOlivastroD (1992). Status report: linkage between technology and science. Research Policy21: 237–249.
43.
NelsonRR (2001) Observations on the post-Bayh–Dole rise of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer26(1): 13–19.
44.
NishimuraY (2011) Recent trends of technology transfers and business–academia collaborations in Japanese universities. Industry–Academia–Government Collaboration7(1): 13–16.
45.
OECD (2012) A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
46.
Owen-SmithJPowellWW (2001). To patent or not: faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer26(1–2): 99–114.
47.
PetruzzelliAM (2011). The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university–industry collaborations: a joint-patent analysis. Technovation31(7): 309–319.
48.
RasmussenEMoenØGulbrandsenM (2006) Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation26(4): 518–533.
49.
RichardsG (2009) Spin-Outs: Creating Businesses from University Intellectual Property. Petersfield: Harriman House.
50.
SampatBN (2006) Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: the world before and after Bayh–Dole. Research Policy35(6): 772–789.
51.
ScheuMVeefkindVVerbandtY. (2006). Mapping nanotechnology patents: The EPO approach. World Patent Information28: 204–211.
52.
SlaughterSRhoadesG (2004) Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
53.
StevensAJJensenJJWyllerK. (2016) The commercialization of new drugs and vaccines discovered in public sector research. In: BreznitzSMEtzkowitzH (eds) University Technology Transfer: The Globalization of Academic Innovation. London: Routledge, pp. 102–146.
US Government Accounting Office (GAO) (1998) Technology Transfer: Administration of the Bayh–Dole Act by Research Universities. Report to Congressional Committees, 7 May 1998. Washington: GAO. Available at: www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98126.pdf (accessed 28 June 28 2016).
56.
VeefkindVHurtado-AlbirJAngelucciS. (2012) A new EPO classification scheme for climate change mitigation technologies. World Patent Information34(2): 106–111.
57.
WallmarkJT (1997) Inventions and patents at universities: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Technovation17(3): 127–139.
58.
WilbanksR (2016) In: EtzkowitzHZhouCTijssenR (eds) Global Entrepreneurial University Metrics: Science, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Washington: US National Science Foundation, SciSip Program (proposal under review).
